FM

[TheBigA]

I know of very few music stations that ran 3 stops,

It was so common in the 90s that numerous syndicated shows adopted it as standard.

The 4 stops in the middle of each quarter hour came out of the "standardization" of Arbitron in the early 70's.

Correct. That's why I said it was common in the 70s and 80s. But it was replaced by 3 breaks in the 90s.

I really don't see radio going back to any standards from the 70s. Most current PDs weren't alive then.

I am not aware of any station using Voltair on their stream.

Interesting. Good to know.

 

[davideduardo]

It was so common in the 90s that numerous syndicated shows adopted it as standard.

I was involved with stations in markets like LA, Dallas, Phoenix, San Diego, Miami, Houston and Chicago in that decade and did not sense any widespread use of just three stops unless it was to create one half-hour sweep if the station was not sold out.

Correct. That's why I said it was common in the 70s and 80s. But it was replaced by 3 breaks in the 90s.

I was involved with a research company in that decade, and even in markets like Huntsville and Albuquerque we saw almost all music stations doing a stop in the middle of each quarter hour.

I really don't see radio going back to any standards from the 70s. Most current PDs weren't alive then.

And that is a problem. The two-stop hour came about as a product of the PPM. Yet copycats instituted it in diary markets where it is actually counter-productive.

The issue is weighing keeping listeners for one quarter hour credit more or, possibly, getting multiple hours and consecutive days by lightening the length of each stop and making it less tedious over longer listening spans.

Those who don't agree say that people who, now, only listen in the car, will not like more interruptions. The fact is that half of the quarter hour listening is still at home or at work, so one has to look at a balance.

Interesting. Good to know.

I am getting the impression that few are actually using the Voltair any longer because the Nielsen improvement to their encoder is much improved.

Again, each station determines how much compression, how much clipping, how much AGC and how much encoding to "doctor" the audio with. Back in the 70's and 80's, we had things like Eric Small's composite clipper which "supposedly" allowed as much as 3db of clipping without sounding distorted, enhancing loudness.

 

[TheBigA]

I was involved with stations in markets like LA, Dallas, Phoenix, San Diego, Miami, Houston and Chicago in that decade and did not sense any widespread use of just three stops unless it was to create one half-hour sweep if the station was not sold out.

Were any of them in the country format?

I was involved with a research company in that decade, and even in markets like Huntsville and Albuquerque we saw almost all music stations doing a stop in the middle of each quarter hour.

That may be, but at that time, I saw stations doing a music sweep from just before the top of the hour until :20 past the hour that was commercial free. The idea was to hold listeners into the second quarter hour. I still hear that template used today.

 

[davideduardo]

Were any of them in the country format?

I can check with Phil Hunt, who was our Rusty Walker associate in the 90's, but "back then" we did 4 stops an hour in the center of the quarter.

That may be, but at that time, I saw stations doing a music sweep from just before the top of the hour until :20 past the hour that was commercial free. The idea was to hold listeners into the second quarter hour. I still hear that template used today.

And that came from a mistake impression that listening began at the top of the hour.

 

[MarioMania]

KOSF sounds lower in Audio compered to the other Stations I hear

Is that a iHeart thing or just how a station is?

 

[HenryOchs]

Hey Michael! Maybe U should check out KYLD(WiLD 94-9)! Very good music on that station.

 

[michael hagerty]

Hey Michael! Maybe U should check out KYLD(WiLD 94-9)! Very good music on that station.

I heard it, Henry. As I said, my observations are about audio processing, not content.

 

[michael hagerty]

KOSF sounds lower in Audio compered to the other Stations I hear

Is that a iHeart thing or just how a station is?

I didn’t get up the dial that far, but since KYLD and KISQ are also a brick wall of sound, if KOSF is markedly quieter, it’s not because it’s an iHeart station.

 

[Weiserguy]

Could you tell if the Public Radio Satellite System audio levels standard for KQED made it easier to listen to compared to other stations? This is what I mean:

Public Radio Satellite System adopts new standard for audio levels

The Public Radio Satellite System adopted standards Thursday intended to normalize audio levels among the programs it distributes to stations. PRSS adopted an audio measurement standard using a number to denote audio levels, instead of the longtime industry standard of peak meters. Decibel...

current.org

I should have been more clear---I'm talking about the commercial music stations. KQED sounded fine...so does KCBS. But KOIT, Alice, Breeze, Movin'----yikes.

Realizing that @michael hagerty started this thread to discuss the audio quality of SF's commercial FM's, I'd like to take another short detour into the cul-de-sac of non-com ("NPR") stations.

This morning I had a few minutes to lollygag in bed before letting the new day assault me. I popped in the earbuds from a little bedside radio and turned it on. The presets have Sacramento's KXJZ ("CapRadio") sandwiched inbetween KQED and KALW, so if atmospheric conditions cooperate, it's very easy to flip between the three stations. This morning KXJZ was making the journey to the Peninsula clear as a bell, so instead of focusing on whatever today's outrage-du-jour was, I spent the 30 minutes A-B'ing the audio quality of the three stations.

Frankly, even with an inexpensive DSP radio and cheapo SkullCandy earbuds, the difference was palpable. KXJZ had dynamic range, with processing that seemed set for the music programming that it used to carry on weekends. KQED's processing was so flat that it could have been a hike through western Ohio. CapRadio was easy to understand, KQED was sometimes a struggle. (KALW is somewhere inbetween, better sound quality but on a weaker signal, in glorious monaural in the daytime hours, so that stereo "hiss" isn't an issue.)

Maybe tomorrow I'll drag out the better (Qodosen DX-286) radio and compare how the stations stack up against each other using it with better headphones. But maybe that will partially answer @radiofan2023's question, though I don't believe the issue is really loudness.

 

[Negin]

I have a rack of pro audio stuff like Tascam and such and also have a DaySequerra AM/FM HD Radio rack mounted and that thing can tell what stations have good audio quality or not. Some stations in my area (Reno/Tahoe) sound bad, some over processed and think one of the classical music stations has decent sound.

I don't listen to the radio that much though since I have my own audio music server and the quality is a lot better. On trips to the Bay Area I do noticed the great difference on the audio quality. Sometimes hitting the button on the radio might be the same song playing and you could tell the difference.

 

[Mark Roberts]

Maybe tomorrow I'll drag out the better (Qodosen DX-286) radio and compare how the stations stack up against each other using it with better headphones. But maybe that will partially answer @radiofan2023's question, though I don't believe the issue is really loudness.

The Qodosen has excellent sound quality, in my opinion. I can tell the difference with other portable radios even with mere Apple EarPods.

I couldn’t pick up CapRadio at my old Oakland location, nor at the Emeryville “home away from home” that I’ve used since moving away, so I couldn’t really tell you how I thought CapRadio sounded compared to the Bay Area pubcasters. KALW had a “beefier” sound compared to KQED-FM, but, as you mentioned, it was mono most weekdays, so a head-on comparison would be done best in the evenings or on weekends when KALW does some music programming.

Mike was lamenting the poor audio quality of most stations in the Bay Area. I endorse that complaint.

 

[michael hagerty]

Anything having to do with audio quality at CapRadio (KXJZ or KXPR) always went through Mark Jones, who is a huge believer that you can be loud enough to be noticed and clean. I've always found both those signals (long before I went to work there) to be very easy to listen to for long periods of time.

 

[Weiserguy]

Anything having to do with audio quality at CapRadio (KXJZ or KXPR) always went through Mark Jones, who is a huge believer that you can be loud enough to be noticed and clean. I've always found both those signals (long before I went to work there) to be very easy to listen to for long periods of time.

I did as I wrote above and listened for awhile on the Qodosen this morning. Despite CapRadio's signal being whacked with sideband interference from the two more local adjacents (KALX 90.7 Berkeley and KCSM 91.1 San Mateo, which transmits from only a few miles north of here), the difference in sound quality is noticeable. A bit more bass, enough "punch" to make the signal more intelligible. The other two aren't bad, but for all of KQED's success in the market, it's surprising they never went back and tweaked their audio to add a similar amount of punch. KXJZ and KALW are proof you can do it without driving your signal to distortion or listener fatigue. (KDFC is another great example of what FM can sound like with just enough punch in the settings, but without overdoing the compression or other "fatiguers".)

 

[cc333]

This goes to show to me that all of the complaints by the industry that listeners are leaving radio are, in part, a self fulfilling prophecy.

AM is one thing, but FM, despite its limitations as an analog medium, can still sound 100% better than it does. KDFC and CapRadio prove it.

As I said before, there's no excuse for a Top 10 radio market to sound this mediocre. If the commercial broadcasters really do care that little about the listening experience (KCBS/KFRC-FM being a notable exception), maybe they should just take their FMs dark and be done with it.

Not that I would advocate for such a drastic move, but they really do seem to be painting themselves into a corner with all those "brick walls of sound."

c

 

[michael hagerty]

This goes to show to me that all of the complaints by the industry that listeners are leaving radio is, in part, a self fulfilling prophecy.

AM is one thing, but FM, despite its limitations as an analog medium, can still sound 100% better than it does. KDFC and CapRadio prove it.

As I said before, there's no excuse for a Top 10 radio market to sound this mediocre. If the commercial broadcasters really do care that little about the listening experience (KCBS/KFRC-FM being a notable exception), maybe they should just take their FMs dark and be done with it.

Not that I would advocate for such a drastic move, but they really do seem to be painting themselves into a corner with all those "brick walls of sound."

c

You can say that, but they're generating ratings and revenue with them. Expect them to keep doing that. The business operates quarter by quarter. The long view is a very rare one.

 

[TheBigA]

This goes to show to me that all of the complaints by the industry that listeners are leaving radio are, in part, a self fulfilling prophecy.

Show me examples where "the industry" is complaining that listeners are leaving radio. I'm not aware that "the industry" speaks with one voice.

I've seen lots of listener polls, and any listener complaints about audio quality are way down on the list. It obviously bothers you. But that view doesn't appear to be common. The top 3 are the music, the talent, and the commercials.

 

[cc333]

You can say that, but they're generating ratings and revenue with them. Expect them to keep doing that. The business operates quarter by quarter. The long view is a very rare one.

*sigh* You are, of course, correct.

I think part of the problem for me is that I care too much. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but it seems like the quality of the on air processing is one of the most important aspects of the overall listener experience, so it's important to have the best quality sound you can, while maximizing volume (within sane limits) so you can minimize the effects of interference and other noises.

In the past (like, maybe 50-60 years ago), operators seemed like they tended to care more about quality, and tried to ensure that the listener experience was the best that the technology of the time would allow (early BM broadcasters, from what I've read, were especially notorious for being obsessed with this).

Perhaps they still would care today if there were enough money, so I understand the need to cut costs when revenue is tight, which necessarily means making some compromises at the expense of quality. But how much would it cost to just turn the ear splitting overprocessing down a notch or two?

Anyway, perhaps none of what I just said matters, because, in part, most listeners either don't care or don't know better, so they're going to listen anyway.

Show me examples where "the industry" is complaining that listeners are leaving radio. I'm not aware that "the industry" speaks with one voice.

Well, I guess I overgeneralized. I should've been more clear that I was referring to the overall consensus among many in the industry that listeners are leaving radio for Internet-based streaming and on demand services (I forgot to add that this is also causing a reduction in ad revenue, because the advertisers are leaving too).

Of course, I don't work in the industry, so there's undoubtedly many things about it that I don't understand or know about (I only know what little I know because of this forum and the various other bits of research I've done).

c

 

[TheBigA]

Well, I guess I overgeneralized.

You think?????

In the past (like, maybe 50-60 years ago), operators seemed like they tended to care more about quality, and tried to ensure that the listener experience was the best that the technology of the time would allow (early BM broadcasters, from what I've read, were especially notorious for being obsessed with this).

As I've said, it depends on the format. Classical & jazz are very concerned about audio quality. They're aiming at a different audience and a different listening environment. The environment dictates the experience.

"The technology of the time" isn't FM. We all know that. I've already explained why.

 

[Weiserguy]

I've seen lots of listener polls, and any listener complaints about audio quality are way down on the list. It obviously bothers you. But that view doesn't appear to be common. The top 3 are the music, the talent, and the commercials.

You bring to mind two quotations:

From Steve Jobs: “Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, "If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!'" People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page.”

And from Paul Simon: "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (from The Boxer)

Any listener who understood audio could tell you what's wrong with current-day commercial FM. The problem is that very few listeners do.

 

[TheBigA]

Any listener who understood audio could tell you what's wrong with current-day commercial FM. The problem is that very few listeners do.

I understand audio. It's part of my job. I have already explained the limitations of FM. It's hundred-year old technology that really hasn't been modernized in 40 years. There really isn't a lot one can do about physics.

It's partly why most radio companies are seeking to transition their audience to streaming.